Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only reveals the output type (banner/version). It does not disclose whether this actively connects to the target, scans a default port, is safe/passive, or what happens when the target is unreachable or not running SSH.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with no redundancy. However, it reads as a label or fragment rather than a complete instruction, so the brevity is partly due to under-specification rather than deliberate concision.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Even though an output schema exists and the tool has only one optional parameter, the description is missing key invocation context: what q should contain, how targets are formatted, and what network behavior to expect. The agent can infer the rough purpose but not reliably invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has a single undocumented parameter q with 0% coverage. The description says 'per-target,' which loosely implies q is the target, but it never explicitly maps q to a hostname, IP, domain, or accepted format, leaving the agent to guess.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies a specific resource ('SSH server banner / version') and indicates per-target scope, so an agent can tell this fetches SSH banner information. However, it is a noun phrase without an explicit verb and does not explicitly differentiate from network-related siblings like smtpbanner or tlsscan, though the protocol is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as portscan, dns, or smtpbanner. The only hint is 'per-target,' which implies a target input, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.